Re: [gentoo-dev] Paludis and Profiles

[Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>]

I've read every mail thus far (even the mails sent from next month <g>).

There is no technical reason that the profile shouldn't go in.  Past 
precedent is set, most of the kinks regarding the profile have been 
worked out, yet members of the community are dead set against the idea.

I think I was dead set against it too, a few weeks ago.

However, everyone has the silliest of reasons, or so it seems.  Everyone 
is afraid of switching, fear is good, fear keeps one cautious.  However 
fear is also stifling, stifling innovation in this instance.  Paludis is 
  a way forward, as is any portage rewrite.  It has bugs yes, it works 
for the most part yes.  So why not give it a fair shot?

Fear the Slipperly slope:
First a new profile, then an eclass, then the tree!  Paludis will take 
control of everything!

Only if you let it.  And to an extent, why not let it.  Who has to 
commit all that crap that uses all the new shiny features?  Thats right, 
developers do.  If thats the way developers wish to go, than thats the 
way Gentoo may go.  Of course, you need to keep standards in the tree, 
EAPI helps this a bit.  Use something new in Paludis, EAPI it.  Portage 
will gladly mask it properly.  This is where the problem lies however.

None of the paludis folk are asking for ebuild changes at this time.  I 
say give them their profile; tell them if they make any ebuild changes 
you will cut their nuts off.  Take it to the council and figure out a 
plan for migration, since there is more than one alternative coming up. 
  We may need a plan similar to the CVS migration where someone goes off 
and does some testing and figures out what is best for Gentoo.

The problem being with multiple implementations of something we have no 
standard for...they all need to match ;)  Otherwise paludis will end up 
being...well..a fork.

-Alec Warner
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list